31westernnorthcarolina.pdf

Frank

L.

Caldwell

Susan

M.

Smith

^-|

ur grandchildren

and

great-grandchildren

must

have

C/

pureair,cleanwater,

park

lands,mineral

and

timber

resources,

and

richsoil. If

we

destroythese, the

Lord

may

forgive us, but our children

and

grandchildren will not.

Former

Congressman

Roy

A.Taylor,

who

represented

the

mountain

region

from

1960to 1976.1

In

December

1981, a joint projectofthe Center for

Urban

and

Regional Studies

(The

Universityof

North

Carolinaat

Chapel

Hill)

and

theCenterfor

Improving

Mountain

Living

(Western

Carolina University),

sup-portedbytheLincolnInstitutefor

Land

Policy,issueda report entitled

Growth

Management

and

the Future of

WesternNorthCarolina.2

According

to that report, the

"future"forenvironmentalprotection

and

land-use

plan-ninginwestern

North

Carolina

was

aboutten yearsaway.

The

report anticipated thatinterest in"growth

manage-ment" would

increase

when

county leadersrecognized

the

need

for balance

between

economic

development,

traditionallifestyles

and

theenvironment.

Nearly elevenyears have passedsince publicationof

that report,and, true tothe prediction,concern about

FrankL.

Caldwell,J.D.iscurrentlya

Community

Develop-ment

Specialistfor the

Economic

Development

Division

of Western Carolina University's Centerfor Improving

Mountain

Living,

and

ispursuing a master's degree in

project

management

at

WCU.

He

holdsaB.A. degreein

Political Science

and

Interdisciplinary Social Sciences

fromthe

UniversityofSouthFlorida

and

aJ.D.degreefrom

Florida State University. Susan

M.

Smith, Ed.D. is the

AssociateDirector_{ofNatural Resources}atWestern

Caro-linaUniversity'sCenterforImproving

Mountain

Living a

positionshehasheld since 1978.

She

holdsaB.S.degree

inbiology

and

chemistry

from

BerryCollege,

an

M.S.P.H.,

from

the Universityof North Carolina,

and

aDoctor of

Education

from

the UniversityofTennessee.

those issuesappearsto be increasingthroughoutthe

region.

For

example,inthe earlyeighties,leadersofall

eightoftheenvironmentalinterestactiongroupsinthe region

would meet

periodically

around

asingle,small

conferencetable to discuss issuesof

mutual

interest.

Today,there areover50 such groupsactivethroughout

the region.

While

some

ofthesegroupsfocus

on

onlya

single issue,others are involved in a

broad

array of

environmental

and

land-useconcerns.

Then,asnow, publicsentiment

on

theappropriate

role ofindividuals,

communities

and

local, state

and

federal

government

agenciesinenvironmental

and

land-use planning ranges

from

absolute laissez faire

indi-vidualismtostate

and

federal

dominance. However,

it

now

appearspublicsentimentincreasingly favors

com-munity

and

local

government

responsibilityforthese decisions.

The

1981 study foundthat

most

western

North

Caro-linacounty budgets

were

considerablysmallerthanthe

stateaverage,with themajorityofeach budget being

devotedtoschoolsystems.

While

county budgets have

generallykeptpace withinflation,thewesterncounties

remain

inthe

same

positionrelativeto therestofthe

state.

Many

countiesstillhave

no

full-time

administra-toror manager. In

some

counties,

one

ofthe county

commissionersalsoservesasthecountymanager.

Only

sixofthe

westernmost

seventeencountieslistthe posi-tionofcounty plannerinthe1

992

DirectoryofState

and

County

OfficialsinNorth Carolina.

Other

county

em-ployees

who

havea

major

roleinland-usemattersare the building inspectors

and

sanitarians

who

are

respon-sibleforenforcing state-mandatedbuildingcodes

and

septictankregulations.

Thislackoflocalpersonnel

and

financialresources

istroublingtothosepeople

who

preferlocalcontrolof

planning decisions.

They

recognize that unless local

con-trol their

own

destiny, the state is likely to

impose

undesirableregulations.

A

varietyofsurveysconducted

in

mountain

countiesinthe past three yearsreflects this

recognition.

A

recent survey conducted ofall

Macon

County

property

owners

indicates that a majority of

respondentsfavora strongerlocalroleinplanningfor

the county.

The

1981 report also provides a telling reminder

about the fate of previous attempts by the

General

Assembly

to

mandate

land-useplanninginthe

moun-tainregion withoutlocalinput.

The

report suggests that

the

most

significant resultofthe1973

and

1975

guberna-torial

and

legislative initiativestoenactthe

Mountain

Area

Management

Act

may

have

been

to solidify

re-gionaloppositiontoany

form

of

government

action in landmatters.

The

1981 report set fortha series of

recommenda-tionsfor state, local,regional

and

federalactions neces-sary tobring about

an

appropriatebalanceinthe

"three-legged stool" of individual lifestyle, environmental

protection

and economic

development.

These

recom-mendations were

distilled

from

suggestions

made

by "local leaders,"defined ascounty commissioners,health

directors, sanitarians, planners, savings

and

loan

offi-cials, builders

and

realtors in representative counties

throughoutthewesternregion.

What

followsisa

summary

ofseveral

recommenda-tions

from

the 1981 report, a short

commentary

on

governmental or

community

actioninthe intervening

elevenyears

and

observationsaboutthe relevanceofthe

recommendations

in late1992.

State

Government

1.

Improved

_{enforcement of}existingregulations.

Sug-gested

maximum

enforcement ofexisting state regula-tions (sedimentation control, septic system, building codes) beforeimposingadditionalregulatory require-ments.

Such

enforcement shouldincludeadequate

fund-ing

and

staffing,

and

takeintoaccounttheuniqueterrain

inthe

mountain

region.

Update:

Continued growth

coupled with cutbacksin

state

and

federal funding for local

programs

have

re-sultedinincreasedlocalresponsibilitieswithlittleor

no

increaseinfunding orstaffsupport. In

many

counties,

personnelcannot

meet

the

demand

forenforcementof

current regulations.

The

limited personnel

and

travel

funds hinder

enforcement

of current erosion control

regulationsin

many

ruralpartsofthe

mountain

region

and

severelyrestrict the initiation ofsubstantive

pro-grams

focused

on

education

and

prevention.

2.

Focus

on

localgovernments.

Recommended

that

new

state land-use

and

environmental regulation of

local activitiesusethe"state-mandated,

local-enforce-ment

approach," with appropriatephasing-inperiodsto allowfor staff

and

public education.

Update:

While

the1983

"North

Carolina

Ridge

Law"

is an

example

of the suggested approach, the

more

recent 1991 "Draft

Watershed

Protection Rules"

sig-naleda returntothe"Raleigh

knows

best"attitude.

The

"Ridge

Law"

was

initiatedbecause of concernsexpressed

by

mountain

residents about the environmental,

aes-thetic

and

public safety affects ofhigh-rise ridge-top

development.Itprovideslocalresidentswiththe

oppor-tunity to adopt the state law, develop a

comparable

county ordinance oropt,by referendum, to

impose

no

regulation

on

such development.In contrast,the

Water-shed Protection regulations

were

developed

and

im-posed with little effectiveparticipation

on

the partof

those property

owners and

local

community

leaders

affectedbythelaw.

3.

Add

eligibility requirements to grants-in-aid pro-grams.Suggestedthatthestatelinklocalfinancial

assis-tance to state policy initiatives such as the Balanced

Growth

Policy,

and

to local

government

capital-im-provements

planning.

Update: Several other states,includingFlorida

and

Georgia, have

adopted

the "carrot

and

stick"

approach

of either providing a financial

inducement

for local

governments

that undertake

comprehensive

land-use

planningstrategiesorwithholding development-related

grantfunds

from

those

communities

thatfailtoaddress planningissues.

4.

An

increasedrolefor education

and

extension.

Rec-ommended

that the state should build

local-govern-ment

capacityby sponsoring

and

conducting

more

work-shops

on

environmentalprotection

and

economic

de-velopment

issues in ruralareas,as well asdeveloping

"model"

ordinancestailored tomountainous/rural

ter-rain.

Update:

While

theInstituteof

Government

at

UNC-Chapel

Hill has continued to develop professional

education

workshops and

materials forlocal

govern-ment

officials,budget cutbacks curtailed travel

allow-ancesfor localrepresentativeswanting toattendsuch

workshops, whilealsoincreasing

workload

demands

on

those representatives. Since 1981, the legislature has

authorized only

one

two-year pilot effort, funding a

planningpositionin

Avery

County

todraft

model

ordi-nances. In addition, the state with funding

from

the

Appalachian

Regional

Commission,

created a special

program

in 1991 allowing counties toapply for

assis-tanceingeneratinglocalland-usemaps.

Program

fund-ing

was

limited to

no

more

than $30,000 percountyfor

one

yearonly.

The

state failedtoprovidethe responsible

administrative division with funding specifically

ear-marked

forthe

program

orforthe necessary

computer

mapping

equipment. This lack of

commitment

forced

the Division of

Community

Assistancetoseek private

foundation fundingtoacquire the necessary

computer

mapping

hardware

system

needed

byitsregionaloffice

toassistlocalcounties.

Local

Government

1.Increaseuseof impact assessments

and

subdivision

regulations. Suggested that local

governments

experi-encing orexpectingseasonalrecreational

development

should adopt

programs

to anticipate

and

provide for

increased

demand

for services.In1981,counties

had

the authoritytorequireenvironmental assessmentsforall

developments

greaterthan

two

acres. Assessments of

size,terrain,water,sewer,road

and maintenance

suita-bility,

and

effects

on

countyservices

and

transportation

couldberequired.Council of

Government,

Soil

Conser-vation Service

and

the

Departments

of Natural

Re-sources

and

Community

Development

fieldoffice staff

were

availableto assistcountiesin evaluatingsuch

as-sessments. Counties

were encouraged

to consider

re-quirements forvacation

developments

based

on

their

size

and

future service

demands.

The

suggestedforms of

such requirements included various permit fees,

per-formance bonds

orservice

maintenance

funds,

devel-oper or

homeowner

association provision of certain

services,subdivisionplatreview

and

minimum

lotsizes.

Most

of these requirements could be triggered by a subdivisionordinance providingsizethresholdsforthe

proposed

developments.

Update:

As

of

June

1990,onlyseven ofthe24

western-most

countiesin

North

Carolina

had adopted

a subdivi-sionordinance.3

Another

county providesfor

predevel-opment

review of

proposed

large-scaledevelopments.

Burke County

has

adopted

a

Land-Use

Management

Ordinance

(LUMO)

as

an

alternative to a traditional

zoning ordinance (Seesidebar).

The

interestexpressed

by several county planning boards

and

many

citizen

groups inthe

Land-Use Guidance System

further

em-phasizes the attraction of "functional" planning

and

management

systems that

meet

local needs, include public participation

and

arerealistic

and

practical.

2.

Focus

on

localcapacity building.

Recommended

that local

governments

expand

their staff capabilities,

using Soil Conservation Service

and

state field office

staffresources

more

frequently.

The

report also

sug-gested that theexplorationofalternativearrangements, suchastheuse ofpart-timestaffthroughcontractswith

councilsofgovernment,jointcity-countystaff

and

shar-ing staff

among

counties;

and

that existing staff

meet

state

competency

requirements.

Update:

As

oflate 1992,

no

cities

and

counties in

western

North

Carolina

had

established jointplanning

boards.Several counties have,however, contracted with

theirrespectivecouncilsof

government

toprovide

proj-ect

and

technicalservices.

The

budget restraintsof

re-cent yearshave discouraged

some

counties

from

sending

A

Functional

Alternative

to

Zoning

in

Rural Counties

The

Burke

County,

North

Carolina,

Land-Use Management

Ordinance

is patterned

after the

Bedford

County, Virginia,

Land-Use Guidance

System

(LUGS).

Severalother

countiesareconsideringthe

LUGS/LUMO

approach.

The

Land-Use

Management

Ordinance

isbased

on

theCounty's

Com-prehensive

Land-Use

Plan's Goals

and

Objectives to

promote

growth

while pro-tecting the environmental integrity

and

physical aestheticsofthe county.Violation ofthe goals

and

objectives

would

harm

the

common

good and impose

unnecessary

bur-dens

on

the

community

and

individuals

af-fected by land development. Individual

developments

willnot

be

predesignatedforparticular locations,as in

traditionalzoning,butrather

must

adheretothe prin-cipleoffreeuse of propertyaslongassuch usedoes not

impose an

excessivelynegative

burden

on

the

environ-ment

orthe

community. Proposed

changesinland-use

aresubmittedtothecounty planningstaff,

which

classi-fies the proposal as

one

offour uses: Prohibited uses

include hazardous/nuclear waste disposal or storage,

non-countyestablishedlandfills,developmentthat

would

destroy historic sites

and

flashing signs.

Exempt

uses

includeagriculture,bonafidefarms,yardsales,

produce

stands,

most

signs

and

home

occupations. Uses-by-right

includesingle family residences

and

expansion of

exist-ing use not to exceed 50 percent ofthe current use.

Allowable/Permittedusesincludeany use not otherwise

consideredprohibited,

exempt

oruse-by-right.

The

impact ofa

proposed

development

isevaluated

on

environmental

and

community

guidelines.

A

rating

system or

Growth

Guidance Assessment

isbased

on

a

point system, considering (1) Percent ofsurrounding

area developed; (2) Similarity of

development

in the

area; (3)Proximitytodesignatedgrowthareas; (4)Impact

on

the public schoolsystem; (5)

Road

characteristics

affectingthesite; (6) Airqualityimpact; (7) Distance

from

historicsites;(8)

Type

ofwatersystem;(9)

Type

of

sewage

system; (10)Distancetoafirestation;

and

(11)

Distancetoarescue

squad

or

ambulance

base.

The

assignment ofpointsisbased

on

thepreservation

ofthe

environment

and

on

protectionof

prime

agricul-tureland

from

unorderly growth.

The

secondevaluation

isbased

on

a two-fold

community

impactcriterion:the

evaluation of tangible factors, including: percent of

surrounding land

which

isdeveloped, roadaccess,

pub-licwater

and

seweraccess,

and

distance to schools,fire

and

rescueservices,

and

similarfactors.Thisevaluation

encourages

development

inalready established

growth

areaswith easyaccess topublicfacilities. This reduces

LinvilleGorge WildnemessAreainBurkeCounty.

the scattering of

development

and

allowsfor the

effi-cientprovisionofpublicservices.

The

second

commu-nityimpactevaluation requires a compatibility

assess-ment.

The

developerisrequiredtopresenthisplansat

awell-publicized

open

publicmeeting.

The

purpose

of

this meeting is to determine the project's impact

on

surroundingproperties.

The

developer

may

chooseto

voluntarily

implement

changes to mitigate identified

negative impacts.

Should

the project

remain

incompat-iblewiththe publicgood,thePlanning Board, orother

appropriatelocalboard,can

make

adetermination

on

theapproval ofthe project based

on

allavailable

evi-dence.

The

basic premise of

LUMO

is to

make

the

proposalcompatible with surroundingexisting uses,not

tofindwaysto

deny

aproject.

The

compatibilitymeeting

is intended to insure that

new

development

does not

haveadetrimentaleffect

on

establisheduses.

The

best

determinationfor

harmonious growth

isconsideredto

be public opinion, particularly that of neighbors

and

adjacentlandowners.

LUMO

createsa greater flexibil-itythantraditionalzoningbecause thereare

no

prede-termineduse zones.

The

ordinance providesflexibility,

fairness,speedinprocessing

and

public participation.If

citizens of the county

do

not feel that

LUMO

will

adequatelyprotect theirneighborhood, they can

peti-tionfora conversion to

"Other

Use

Districts,"orthe

establishment ofa traditional zone.

These

zones

may

be

residential-agriculture;

medium

density; office

and

in-stitutional;

neighborhood

business;

highway

business;

or industrial.

To

qualifyfor conversion, the landarea

must

beat least

one

square mile withatleastten

prop-erty owners; or contiguous parcels

under

separate

ownership; ora single

owner

ofat least 50 acres

may

request a

change

to

an

industrial district classification.

Before a reclassification is approved, at least

three-fourths ofthe property

owners

within the area

must

agree.

("Burke

County

Land-Use Management

courses; however, in 1991,twelve county

and

commu-nity groups with assistance

from

the

Western North

Carolina

Tomorrow,

a citizenleadership council

serv-ingtheseventeen

westernmost

countiesin

North

Caro-lina,acquired

matching

fundsthatenabled over50

com-munity

leaders to take field trips to study land-use

systemsinVirginia

and

Georgia.

The commitment

and

follow-through ofthesecounty

and

community

organi-zations tosupport

hands-on

training

and

information

exchangereflectsa

growing

recognition that

new

meth-ods to

meet

ruralplanning needs

must

be understood

and

evaluated.

3.Experimentwithjointpublic-private sectorprograms.

Suggestedthatcounties

supplement

localregulationsby

seekingcooperation fromlendinginstitutions

and

build-ing

and

realtyassociationsto incorporatecriteriasuch

assuitabilityforprivatewater or sewer systems

and

site

construction

methods

insubdivision

development

loan

applications.

Government

staffshouldoffereducation programsfordevelopment-related groups, coveringtopics suchas"best practices"forconstruction

and

state

and

localrequirements.

These programs

couldbeofferedat

associationmeetings or sponsored throughthe

continu-ingeducationofficesoflocal

community

and

technical

colleges.

Update:

Between

1985

and

1992,

Western North

Carolina

Tomorrow

distributedover10,000 copiesof

an

eleven-pagebookletentitled/4

Mountain

Home-Before

You

Buy,

which

advises

new

home

buyersaboutspecial considerationsinbuying

mountain

property.

Thousands

of these booklets

were

purchased

and

distributed by

county agencies,

chambers

of

commerce,

real estate

agencies,

community

organizations

and

individuals.

Another

example

of public-private

cooperation

was

a regionalconference

on

land-policy issues heldin

Novem-ber1992sponsored byregionalbanks,

educationalinstitutions,state

organi-zations,

chambers

of

commerce

and

many

other

community

and

civic

or-ganizations.

4. Capital-improvements planning.

Recommended

that counties start

capital-improvements planning

and

multi-yearbudgetingin orderto

esti-mate

future service needs, costs,

and

county revenues. Planning for

major

infrastructureshould

be

closely

coor-dinated with land-use planning to

maintainanattractiveenvironmentfor

continued

economic

development.

Update: Section 130A-309.08 ofthe

North

CarolinaSolid

Waste

Manage-ment

Act

of1989requires counties

and

municipalities to determine the full

costofsolidwaste

management

within

the service area to encouragebetter planning ofsuch

facilities

and

services.

The

continued lackofplanning

boards or

comprehensive

county plans in

many

rural

mountain

counties discourages the coordination of

economic development

efforts.

Regional Agencies

and

Institutions

1.

Expand

outreach

and

extensionprograms. Suggested

thateducational institutions

engage

in

more

outreach

programs

and

seminarsinconjunction withlocal

gov-ernments, private groups

and

each other.

Programs

should bedirected atimproving local staff

knowledge

and

traininginspecificplanning techniques

and

strate-gies. Institutions

were

also

encouraged

to experiment

withjointresearch projects

on

suchtopicsastheeffects

of

growth

and

regional potentialforresource

and

eco-nomic

development.

Update:

The

many

public

and

privatepostsecondary

institutionsthroughoutthe

mountain

regionhave

con-tinued to

expand

their outreachto localcommunities.

Each

institutionhas

engaged

inindividualinitiatives,as

well ascooperatinginbroadercollaborativeefforts.

The

authors have

been

directly involved in

many

of the

activities of

Western

CarolinaUniversity, through its

CenterforImproving

Mountain

Living

(CIML). CIML's

Local

Government

Training

Program,

co-sponsored by

the Instituteof

Government

at

UNC-Chapel

Hill,

of-fered33 regional training events in 1989-91, with

an

average of

40

publicofficialsattendingeachevent.

The

Center hasconducted housing needsstudiesforseveral

counties in the region to help local

governments

de-velopeffective strategies foraffordablehousingforelderly

and

low- to

moderate-income

families.In 1991, the

day

Western North

Carolina

Land

Management

Con-ferencesponsored by

many

regionalgroups, including

Western

NorthCarolina

Tomorrow

(WNCT)

and

CIML,

attracted

community

leaders,planningboard

members

and

interestedcitizens

from

throughoutthe region. In 1992,

CIML

and

WNCT

sponsored

two

field trips in

which

local officials

and

community

leaders travelled to

Georgia

and

Virginia toobserveseveralprototypeland

management

and economic development

strategies

working

inrural

mountain

communities.

2. Assistance

from

councils of government.

Recom-mended

thatthefour councilsof

government

servingthe

mountain

regionenter into

ongoing

cooperative

staff-ing arrangements with counties

and

cities to provide

local

governments

with

needed

expertise.

Update:

The number

of

programs

in

which

councilsof

governments

assistlocalcountieshasincreased.

Fund-ing,however,for staffregional positionsisverylimited.

In

some

cases,the lackofresourcesinhibitstheabilityof

regional councils toprovidethe

needed

technical

assis-tance.

There

are, however,

many

examples of

COG

cooperation with local government.

The

Isothermal

Council of

Government

has provideda full-time

plan-nertocountiesfor

one

yeartoassistinthe

development

of a land-useplan.

The

Land-of-Sky Council has

worked

with

Buncombe

County

to

implement

a solid waste

composting

program

partiallyfunded bythe

Tennessee

ValleyAuthority.

Federal

Government

1. Greater sensitivity to the local impacts offederal

actions.

Recommended

that federalland agencies

con-tinue toevaluate thesocio-economic impacts oftheir

policies inthe region, includingresource

development

decisions

and

management

plans.Federalregional

net-works

should

be

expanded

to include

more

local offi-cials. Regional viewpoints should be incorporated in

setting plan alternatives as well as issues. Results of

impact analyses should

be

widely distributed

and

dis-cussedwith local leadersaswellasothergroups.

The

extent to

which

localimpactswillinfluence federal land policydecisionsshouldbeclarified.

Update:

The

abilityoffederalagenciestoadequately addresslocalimpactsinassessing federalactionsisstill

a

major

pointofdiscussioninthe region.

Over

the past

tenyears,theopportunityto

make

public

comments on

federaldecisionshasincreased.

Whether

this

opportu-nityhas

been

accompanied

byincreasedresponsiveness

isaquestion that receives

many

differentanswers,

de-pending

on

theagency

and

the projectorprogram.

2. Coordinate

economic

development

programs

with

localgrowthstrategies. Suggestedthatfederally-funded

economic development

activities be coordinated with

localorregionalgrowthstrategies.

The

TennesseeValley

Authority should tie its efforts

more

closely to the

Appalachian

Regional

Commission,

aswellastostate

and

regional strategies.

The

role of public lands in

stimulating the private recreation industry should be examined.

Update:

The

lackoflocal

and

regional

growth

strate-gies,particularlyinthe

more

ruralcounties,continues

to inhibitthecoordination offederal

economic

develop-ment

programs

with local

growth

strategies.Little

re-search has

been

done

regardingtheimpact of federal public-land

management

decisions

on

the private

rec-reationindustry,althoughthe U.S. ForestService has

researchedthe

economic

value

and

impact ofdifferent

TVA

lake-level

management

strategies.4Subsequently,

TVA

changed

its lake-level

drawdown

policy to the benefitofthe region's

outdoor

recreationalindustry.In a similarvein,the

Mountain

Outdoor

Recreation

Alli-ance,incooperation with over

70

otherorganizations, agenciesandbusinesses,adaptedandappliedthe

U.S.D.A

ForestService'sPublic

Area

RecreationVisitorStudy

process to the researchof

outdoor

recreation

on

private

lands, [see article

on

pg.41]

Summary

and

Conclusions

Inthe pastdecade

and

ahalf,

much

thought,time

and

energyhave

been expended

by western

North

Carolini-ans debating the future of land-use planning in the

region.

As

predictedin 1981, the time for thoughtful discussionisrapidlyexpiring.Actions,ordecisionsnot

toact,

made

in thebalance ofthecurrent decadewill

dramaticallyaffect the futureofwestern

North

Caro-lina.

A

failure to decide is in itselfa decision.

While

participatorydialogueisessentialthroughoutthe

deci-sion-makingprocess, thetimeforresponsible actionby

local,regional

and

statepolicymakersisathand.

Responsible land-use planningrequiresa substantial

and

sustained

commitment

ofpersonnel

and

financial

resources.

As

withbuilding a

new

home,

cuttingcorners

in land-use planning today will predictably result in

substantiallyhigherrepair

and

replacementcostsinthe

future. Individual

homes

can usually

be

repaired or

replaced.Inthe caseof landuse,however,thefailureto

articulate

and

implement

a responsible plan for the

mountain

regionwill,in

many

cases,result inthe

perma-nentlossofthe veryresources

which have

sustained the regionthroughouttime,

cp

Notes

1.QuotedinWesternNorthCarolinaTomorrowNewsletter,Vol.2,No.

1,November1980.

2.JoannaMack,etal.,GrowthManagment andtheFutureofWestern

NorthCarolina.

UNC,

ChapelHill,NC,1981.

3.MikeMcLaughlin,"Preserving theNorthCarolinaMountains:Time

toDevelopa Plan?,"NorthCarolinaInsight,Vol.13,No.1,

Decem-ber1990.p. 9.

4.H. Ken Klinkoet.al.,Economic ValueandImpactsonOutdoor

RecreationatWesternNorthCarolinaLakesUnderDifferent

Manage-mentAlternatives,SoutheasternForestExperimentStationandthe University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural Economics,